the effects of semantic relatedness on efl vocabulary...

Ellglish Teaching, Vol. 67, No.3, Autumn 2012

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabulary Recall and Retention

28 1

Shinyoung Bak

(International Graduate School of English)

Bak, Shinyoung. (2012). Effects of semantic relatedness on EFL vocabulary

recall and retention. English Teaching, 67(3),281-305.

Empirical research on the effects of semantic relatedness on EFL new vocabulary

presentation has far y ielded inconsistent results. Thus, thi s study a ims to examine to

what extent semantic relatedness influences EFL vocabulaIy recall and retention for

primary school students in Korea. The current study was conducted with 107

primary schoo l students over 4 weeks. To compare the effects of presenting

semantically related words (S R) and unrelated words (SU), participants were

di vided into two groups, the semantically related words group (Group R) and the

unrelated group (Group U). All the participants learned the same 40 English words

pa ired with their Korean translation through one of two di ffe rent methods. The

results revealed that both presentation methods have positive effects on EFL

vocabu lary reca ll and retenti on. Between these two methods, SU was found to y ield

better results on recall and retention. This difference between groups could be

explained from the perspective of interference theory, the distinctive hypothesis, or

cross-association. Lastly, significant perceptual change concerning the effecti veness

of related words presentation was found in Group R.

I. INTRODUCTION

Vocabulary teaching attracted little interest in second language (L2) acquisition before

the 1990s (Meara, 2002). Many scholars and teachers seemed to believe that L2 learners

would acquire vocabulary naturally just as they did in their first language (Ll) (Coady,

1997). Moreover, it is frequently assumed that vocabulary learning is a simple

memorization task which requires lower-level intellect and is easier than grammar learning

(Coady, 1997). Therefore, vocabulary focused instruction has asswned little value.

However, the value of vocabulary Learning seems to have found its place since the early

2 1 th century. Read (2004) argued that natural vocabulary acquisition without any

282 Bak, Shinyoung

instTuction might be a false impression caused by the process of incidental vocabulary

learning (Hulstijn, 2001). Wilkins (1972) clearly emphasized the role vocabulary plays in

language by stating that "while without grammar very little can be conveyed, without

vocabulary nothing can be conveyed" (as cited in Schmitt, 2010, p. 3). Currently, many of

researchers are generally in agreement that incidental vocabulary learning is certainly

another way for learners to acquire vocabulary knowledge besides intentional learning,

and that incidental learning alone cannot explain all vocabulary growth (Nation, 2001;

Read, 2004). This could also be true for intentional vocabulary learning because these nyo

approaches are seen as complementary to each other in vocabulary learning (Hulstijn,

2001; Schmitt, 2000). Based on this general agreement, the main focus in L2 vocabulary

research seems to have changed from the necessity of vocabulary learning to the most

effective means of undertaking it (Folse, 2004). Regarding effective vocabulary learning,

some studies have focused on the effects of various vocabulary presentation techniques for

intentional learning such as pictures, example sentences, and Ll translation (Chin, 2002;

Jeong, 2007; Kwon, 2004; Ramachandran & Rahim, 2004; Rodriquez & Sadoski, 2000;

Webb, 2007).

Among these investigations, the effects of simultaneous presentation of semantically

related words on L2 vocabulary learning still seem arguable to some extent because of

discrepant findings of studies on this issue (Baleghizadeh & Naeim, 2011; Bolger &

Zapata, 2011; Chin, 2002; Erten & Tekin, 2008; Finkbeinter & Nicol, 2003; Hashemi &

Gowdasiaei, 2005; Jullian, 2000; Tinkham, 1993; Waring, 1997). Despite its as-yet

unproven effects, there is a good possibility that teachers and students may

unquestioningly accept the use of semantically related vocabulary as an effective means of

vocabulary presentation in Korea. Presenting semantically related words is probably one

of the more popular techniques for some course books used in the English language

classroom (Bolger & Zapata, 2011; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Khosravizadeh & Mollaei,

2011). In Korea, this technique can be fOLmd in some units of the text books of primary

school students. In these units, target words which share a common feature of meaning are

presented together under a certain topic such as occupation, family members, and weather.

Because this method generally fits most well with a communicative language teaching

(CLT) approach and a notional-functional syllabus (Folse, 2004; Tinkham, 1993), both of

which have influenced the Korean national curriculum, this method of vocabulary

presentation could be thought of as one of the more natural or useful methods by teachers

and students. Under these genuine circumstances, the necessity arises to compare the effect

of presentation of semantically related words and that of unrelated words.

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabulary Recall and Retention 283

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

In spite of the popularity of using semantic relatedness on L2 vocabulary learning, the

results of the existing research on the effect of this method have been inconsistent as well

as rather controversial. For a better understanding of this issue, the research findings and

theories supporting each side of the argument are reviewed. Based on the review, the

specific research questions of the present study are addressed.

1. Semantic Relatedness in Vocabulary Teaching

Generally, semantic is an adjective which means "used to describe things that deal with

the meaning of words and sentences" (Collins Cobuild English dictionary for advanced

learners, 2003). In the fie ld of vocabulary teaching, semantically related words are the sets

of words which have certain connections, share common meanings, or compose a network

in meaning. Khosravizadeh and Mo llaei (2011) grouped these connections under the

concept semantic field and desctibed this as an "interrelationship between the words" (p.

20). Within these connections, the meaning of the words in the same semantic fie ld seems

to be defined and limited by each other 's meaning (Khosravizadeh & Mollaei, 20 II ).

[n the current study, the term lexical-set or semantically related words refers to a group

of words which are related in meaning or can be arranged under a broader concept

(Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005). For instance, the following four words "blue, red, black,

and white" share some semantic characteristics and could be arranged under a concept of

"color." If the word "blue" is presented with other words like "depressed, unhappy, or low,"

these words could foml another potential network. In this new network, the meaning of the

same word "blue" would probably be interpreted differently because the other words in

same group would constrain or clarifY its meaning.

2. Presenting Semantically Related Vocabulary (SR)

The pragmatic benefit has possibly contributed to the popularity of lexical-sets in some

widely Llsed course books for English class (Erten & Tekin; 2008; Waring, 1997).

Semantic clusters generally fit well with most English learning courses regardless of their

approach and seem to be an equally convenient method for material developers (Folse,

2004; Tinkhanl, 1993). Moreover, course book authors who favor lexical-sets have

believed that showing the connections among words promotes learners ' vocabulary

concept learning (Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003 ; Folse, 2004).

This belief is supported by certain theories and has been corroborated by the findings of

some research studies. First, one of the rationales of presenting related words can be drawn

284 Bak, Shinyoung

from Ausubel's (1963) meaningful learning (Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005;

Khosravizadeh & Mollaei, 201 1). Ausubel distinguished between rote learning, a passive

process, and meaningful learning, the active process of relating new information or

concepts to learners' prior knowledge. To encourage this information incorporating process,

using an advance organizer is regarded as one of the more useful strategies (Santrock,

2004; Slavin, 2003). When the words under a broader concept are presented synchronously,

the concept acts as an advance organizer showing meaningful connections between words,

and thus assisting the vocabulary concept learning process (Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005).

Second, studies on the mental lexicon generate another rationale for this position. Word

association analysis in L I studies has yielded a general consensus about the existence of a

mental lexicon, a well organized network of words and concepts (Collins & Loftus, 1975;

Schmitt, 2010; Wolter, 2001). Aitchison (2003) stated that native speakers seem to have a

similar word-web which has logical organization: including "coordination, collocation,

superordination, synonym" (p.86). This word-web, termed a mental lexicon, helps native

speakers recall and retain the vocabulary better as learners notice the comlections among

words (Aitchison, 2003). Simi larly, Schmitt (1997) noted that grouping words benefits

native speakers in the word list recall test. Advocators of using lexical-sets have insisted

that these fmdings could be applied to L2 learning (Baleghizadeh & N aeim, 201 1; Erten &

Tekin, 2008; Schmitt, 2010, Wolter, 2006).

To be specific, a spreading activation model proposed by Collins and Loftus (1975) is

one of the frequently cited theories to support the use of lexical-sets in vocabulary teaching

(Bolger & Zapata, 2011; Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005). In this model, the network

consists of nodes representing words and lines between nodes representing connection

between words. The length of the line shows how strongly the words are semantically

associated (Randall, 2007). Once a certain node in a network is initiated, this activation

spreads through the whole network, thus leading to the activation of other nodes in the

network (Collins & Loftus, 1975). The spread activation primes the other nodes within the

network and results in a faster process (Randall, 2007). Simultaneous presentation of

related words possibly strengthens the links between words and facilitates vocabulmy

learning (Hashemi & Gowdasiaei, 2005). Additional theoretical support is found in the

levels-of-processing theory (Morin & Goebel, 2001; Shapiro & Waters, 2005).

Researchers have noted that recognized information can be processed at a variety of levels

from shallow to deep, and that the amount of cognitive effort that is given to the process

detennines the quality of the retention (Craik & Lockhart, 1972 as cited in Erten & Tekin,

2008; Otten, Henson & Rugg, 2001). Proponents of lexical-sets have claimed that when

the related words are presented at the same tinle, learners benefit from comparing,

contrasting, and organizing or chunking the words (Chin, 2002; Hashemi & Gowdasiaei,

2005; Jullian, 2000; Randall, 2007; Seal, 1991).

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabulary Reca ll and Retention 285

Several empirical studies have explored how semantic relatedness affects vocabulary

learning. Morin and Goebel (2001) investigated the effectiveness of semantic mapping as a

vocabulary learning strategy. Four classes of English speaking college-level learners

received Spanish vocabulary instruction through either a communicative-activity-only

condition or a semantic-mapping-plus-communicative-activity condition. After a semester

long observation, researchers concluded that semantic mapping represents a useful strategy

for beginners. Similarly, Chin (2002) explored how three learning strategies affected

vocabulary learning and retention. Three groups of participants received the following

treatment: in context, word list, and semantic mapping respectively. Subsequent to this,

three types of post and delayed tests fo llowed the treatment. In one type of post test, the fi ll

in test, the context group produced the highest score but showed a significant decrease in

the delayed test. On the other hand, the semantic mapping group yielded the second

highest score in the posttest and a decline in their score was not found in the delayed test.

Chin interpreted these results as signifying that semantic mapping is a beneficial strategy

to ass ist in both learning and retaining vocabulary.

Some researchers have also asserted the value of semantic relatedness as a teaching

technique. Jullian (2000) noted that Spanish learners of English who were taught words in

the same lexical-sets simultaneously enhanced their vocabulary knowledge and ga ined

more accurate use of words . Hashemi and Gowdasiaei (2005) argued that learning

semantically related vocabulary together facilitates learn ing. Iranian adult learners

participated in their study and self-reported their vocabulary breadth and depth using the

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale. The results showed that learners in the related group

surpassed their counterparts in the unrelated group, regardless of their proficiency level. A

similar study was conducted by Baleghizadeh and Naeim (2011) with a single adult learner.

The learner learned two sets of forty-two words, the first set using a semantic mapping

method and the other forty-two-word set of randomly grouped words without using a

semantic mapping method. The positive effect of semantic mapping method was found on

a meaning recall test and interview.

3. Presenting Semantically Unrelated Vocabulary (SU)

in contrast to the proponents of using lexical-sets, others have disputed the benefits of

implementing this technique. Some researchers have attempted to advance the negative

effects of simultaneous presentation of related words based on the interference theory

(Baddeley, 1997; Erten & Tekin, 2008; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003; Papathanasiou, 2009a;

Tinkham, 1993; Waring 1997).

Interference theory suggests that forgetting is caused not by a loss of memories, but

rather because of other information around the targeted one (Santrock, 2004). interference

286 Bak, Shinyoung

occurs "when previously learned information is lost because it is mixed up with new and

somewhat similar information" (Slavin, 2003, p. 189). Additionally, the level of similarity

between information seems to be accepted as a crucial factor to determine the strength of

the interference (Baddeley, 1997). The time gap between learning is suggested as another

factor affects the level of interference (Bower, 2000; Roediger & McDermott, 2000).

In vocabulary learning, the more the presented words share meaning or the more closely

the words are taught, the more interference is likely to occur with the words that are

learned before or after (Tinkham, 1993). Along this same line, Nation (2006) proposed that

learning related words together may contribute to the increased possibility of cross

association between the words. Adding to this claim, Waring (\997) reported that when

learners were asked to match a set of artificial words to the their Ll (Japanese) words

under a related words treatment condition, what caused major problems was not

remembering the pseudo words themselves, but rather pairing them with their cOLmterparts.

Many researchers seem to agree that the result of simultaneous presentation of related

vocabulary is increased difficulty in vocabulary learning (Erten & Tekin, 2008; Nation,

2001 ; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Tinkham, 1993, 1997). Similarly, Hunt and Mitchell (\982)

hypothesized that what makes learning easier is the resultant distinctiveness or non

similarity of the information by making it more salient and noticeable (as cited in

Papathanasiou, 2009b). This idea, known as the distinctiveness hypothesis has been

applied to explain the reason of why presentation of words in the same semantic field

hinders learning (Mirjalili, Jabbari, & Rezai, 2012; Tinkham, 1993, 1997). According to

this hypothesis, words from the same lexical-set which share a common meaning yet

present subtle differences are difficult to learn due to the lack of salient features.

Others have pointed out that though the semantic relatedness could lead to deeper level

of cognitive processing or spreading activation, it may actually hinder learning because of

a limited working memory capacity (KJemm, 2007). When the words sharing common

meanings are taught at the same time, the process of discriminating subtle differences

between the words ' meaning requires some of the working memory trace (Erten & Tekin,

2008). As a result, a reduced amount of memory capacity is available for associating the

unfamiliar L2 form and the known concept. This relatively diminished chance for

consolidation of the meaning could result in a weaker connection, and therefore less

effective learning (Erten & Tekin, 2008).

Researchers have argued that semantic relatedness impedes vocabulary learning based

on the findings of a body of empirical studies (Bolger & Zapata, 2011; Erten & Tekin,

2008; Finkbeinter & Nicol, 2003 ; Tinkham, 1993; Warning, 1997). Tinkham compared the

learning rate of the participants in a semantically related treatment condition and an

unrelated treatment condition. All participants, who were native English speakers, were

asked to remember artificial words that were paired with English words, and match the

The Effects ofSelllantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabulary Recall and Retention 287

pairs in as few trials as possible. Participants in the unrelated group completed the task

fas ter than those in the related group. Later, Waring replicated this study with Japanese

students. The only difference in the experiment design was the fact that English words

were translated into and replaced with Japanese. The result of this study paralleled that of

the original study (Tinkham, 1993). Finkbeinter and Nicol also studied how semantic

relatedness influences vocabulary learning. Two groups of English-speaking participants

received vocabulary training individually through computers. Thirty-two artificial words

which were grouped into 4 categories, 2 related-sets and 2 unrelated-sets, were presented

with their pronunciations and corresponding pictures to show meanings. The average

required time for the translation tasks in both directions (Ll-L2, L2-Ll ) were shorter in the

unre lated group.

Other researchers have conducted similar studies focusing on young learners (Erten &

Tekin, 2008). All the participants, who were fourth-grade Turkish students, learned 2 sets

of 40 semantically related words and the same number of unrelated words. Oral

presentati on of the target words with corresponding pictures and the written form were

followed by practice that consisted of repetition, gestures, and mimes to aid learning. Word

and picture matching tasks were conducted three times for each category as a pre-, post-,

and delayed test. Erten and Tekin reported that learners achieved higher scores on the test

of lmrelated words.

Even more recently, Bolger and Zapata (20 II ) investigated the combined effect of

context and lexical-sets. The researchers borrowed the 4 sets of 32 pseudo words and its

corresponding pictures from the study undertaken by Finkbeinter and Nicol (2003) and

developed 4 stOlies containing a set of words each. Participants read two stories

individually on the computer screen according to their treatment groups and completed

two tests: a semantic categorization and a stimulus-matching verification. Bolger and

Zapata reported that the umelated group still surpassed the related group but the gap

between scores was neutralized compared to Finkbeinter and Nicol's study. The reduced

effect of using semantic sets in Bolger and Zapata's study was attributed to the contextual

support.

As described above, a nunlber of studies have investigated the effect of using lexical

sets in L2 vocabulary learning. Notwithstanding the somewhat discrepant findings that

previous research has yielded, the idea of using lexical-sets seems to be widely appl ied in

some language learn ing course books. Moreover, it is often regarded as one of the more

effective methods. Although some recent studies (Baleghizadeh & Naeim, 2011 ; Hashemi

& Gowdasiaei, 2005; Jullian, 2000) reported the positive role oflexical-sets in vocabulary

learn ing, advantages of thi s method may still be arguable.

Additionally, in order to apply this approach to young Korean learners of English,

futther inquiry seems to be essential. Thus, this study weighs the fo llowing three items:

288 Bak, Shinyoung

young beginner, real words, and classroom dynamics. First, very few studies have been

implemented on this issue in Korea with young leamers. The focus of the present study is

on primary school students who are at the beginning level. Second, real L2 words are used

as the target vocabulary instead of pseudo words. The need for a study applying real L2

words was pointed out in Erten and Tekin's (2008) study. Unlike many studies (Boler &

Zapata, 2011; Finkneiner & Nicol, 2003; Tinkham, 1993, 1997; Waming, 1997), that used

artificial words paired with Ll words, this study employs real English words paired with

Korean equivalents to explore the L2 learning process. Third, the current study is

conducted in four classes of public primary schools to better account for classroom

dynan1ics. One recent investigation (Baleghizadeh & Naeim, 2011) which reported on the

effectiveness of lexical-sets was a single subject study; therefore, a study conducted in a

classroom seems a valuable way to ascertain the results. Additionally, Waring (1997) noted

that experimental designs which severa l studies have fo llowed may have been stressful to

participants, thus resulting in the possibility of different outcomes being produced in other

circumstances.

Thus, this study aims to examine to what extent semantic relatedness affects L2

vocabulary recall and retention for primary school students in Korea. For this purpose, the

effects of the two types of vocabulary presentation, SR and SU are compared. The specific

research questions are as follows:

1. To what extent do different types of vocabulary presentations (SU and SR) affect

L2 vocabulary recall?

2. To what extent do different types of vocabulary presentations (SU and SR) affect

L2 vocabulary retention?

3. To what extent does presentation of semantically related words affect leamers '

perceptions toward its effectiveness?

III. METHOD

1. Participants

The participants of this study were 116 fifth-grade students in four classes from a public

primary school in Gwangju Metropolitan City. However, nine students were excluded

from the fmal sample because five of them transferred to another schools and a further

four were absent for one of the vocabulary tests. Thus, the final sample of 107 students, 54

male students and 53 female students, completed the entire treatment and tests. All the

participants received regular English classes three times per week from their own

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL VocabulalY Recall and Retention 289

homeroom teacher and each class period was 40 minutes in length. Four classes were

divided into two groups and then one group (Class A and Class B) was randomly assigned

as the semantically unrelated group (Group U) and the other one (Class C and Class D)

was assigned to the semantically related group (Group R).

TABLE 1

Number of Participants

Group U Group R Total

Class A Class B Class C Class 0

Boy II 15 15 13 54

Girl 15 12 14 12 53

Total 26 27 29 25 107

2. Materials

I) Vocabulary List

While selecting the target vocabulary, students' interest, semantic relatedness, and

learnability were taken into consideration. First, 30 main concepts were drawn from the

dictionaries: Collins junior thesaurus (1989), Longman children's picture dictionary

(2003) , The basic Oxford picture dictionary (2003), The Heinle picture dictionary (2005) ,

The Oxford picture dictionary (2008). Second, 29 non-participating students attending the

same primary school took a survey which asked them to choose two interesting topics.

According to the survey results, 10 topics were selected in total. Third, six vocabulary

items were drawn on each topic from the dictionaries previously listed, and 60 words were

compiled in total. Fourth, five primary school teachers examined whether learners could

understand the meaning of these 60 words in their L I because slightly difficult words were

selected to exclude known words as much as possible. Through this examination, 13

words were excluded and 47 words remained. Fifth, a pilot test was conducted in order to

include as many unknown items as possible. The same students who participated in the

survey completed the pi lot test, and 10 words which were relatively well known to

students were excluded. Lastly, three new words were added in order to distribute the same

nun1ber of vocabulary items to each category. The 40 selected words were organized into

two types: semantically related word sets and unrelated word sets. In other words, the

participants learned identical vocabulary items but in a different order according to their

group (Appendix A).

290 Bak, Sh inyoung

2) Vocabulary Tests

Because of the students' level, the vocabulary test focused mainly on the receptive

aspect - recognition of the written form. According to this purpose, in the present study a

test of32 modified items following the format of the Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 200 I)

was administered. Forty target words were randomly divided into six groups. Fom to six

Korean equivalents were listed on the right side and eight to 12 target words were given on

the left side. The number of target words was twice as many as that of equivalents so half

of the target words were not ab le to be matched to their counterparts and thus served as

distracters. One point was allocated for each correct answer; therefore, the maximum score

was 32 points for every vocabulary test.

This test was implemented three times in the present study as a pretest, post test, and

delayed test. To prevent participants from remembering the tested items, 32 words were

randomly chosen out of the 40. None of the answers or scores on the tests were revealed to

students for this exact same purpose.

3) Treatment Materials

Two types of treatment materials were provided during the fom weeks of treatment:

PowerPoint materials for the whole class, and worksheets for individual self-study. The

PowerPoint material was designed to minimize the teacher as a variable dming the

presentation phase. Fom classes were taught by their homeroom teachers who vary in their

teaching styles and English proficiency levels; these differences could affect the quality of

presentation and eventually the test scores. Hence, the target words were presented through

PowerPoint material with pictures that showed the meaning of the words, the spoken fornl,

the written form, and the Korean equivalent. After the initial presentation, participants also

listened and repeated the pronunciation of each word eight times as a whole class activity.

Worksheets for self-study provided identical information on the new words to the

PowerPoint material except for the spoken form. The worksheets included some tasks for

indentifying the word form and matching this form to meaning. All material was

distributed only during the allocated time to control the time spent on vocabulary learning.

4) Questionnaires and Interviews

A pre-questionnaire was administered before the treatment for two reasons. First, seven

items revised from Kim (2009) and Lim (2009) were used for gathering information about

students' English learning background. Second, three items were used to investigate

learners' attitudes to vocabulary learning by a fom-point Likert scale (l: strongly disagree;


4: strongly agree). In addition to these seven items, one additional item about the perceived

effectiveness of lexical-sets was included in the survey of only Group R. After the

treatment this one item was asked Group R again as a post-questionnaire to examine

whether the treatment would affect their perception or not. Lastly, semi-structured

interviews were conducted by the researcher to uncover the participants' perceptions. Four

homeroom teachers and four students from each treatment group, eight students in total,

were individually interviewed for about five to 10 minutes.

3. Procedures

The procedure was divided into four phases: before, during, immediately after, and four

weeks following the treatment. Before the treatment, a pre-questionnaire and vocabulary

pretest was conducted. Participants completed the pre-questionnaire two weeks before and

the vocabulary pretest one week before the treatment had begun. In the pre-questionnaire,

Group R had one more question, related to perceived effectiveness toward SR, on their

questionnaire than Group U. Students were also informed that the extra vocabulary

learning session would start the next week.

During the treatment, 20-minutes extra time was assigned four times a week before the

regular classes began, usually from 8:40 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The treatment for the study

lasted four weeks from October 17 to November II in 2011. Each learning session

consisted of a whole-class presentation and a self-study phase. In the presentation phase,

the target words are shown about four times through the PowerPoint material to the whole

class with pictures, spelling, pronunciation, and a Korean translation. The rest of the given

time was allocated for individual study through the tasks in the worksheet. During all

leaming sessions, homeroom teachers were present in the classroom for the purpose of

classroom management, not instruction. Although participants completed a quiz at the end

of evelY week, the scores were not recorded because the quiz was intended to keep

participants interested in the learning procedure.

Right after the treatment, a vocabulary posttest was conducted from November 14 to the

16 in order to explore the treatment effect on vocabulary meaning recall. During this same

period, Group R received a post-questionnaire. Additionally, semi-structured interviews

were conducted on November 16 to gather more qualitative information. Approximately

one month later, the delayed test of vocabulary was administrated without any review of

the target words in order to inspect the treatment effects on vocabulary retention.

4. Data Analysis

The test scores from t1u·ee L2 vocabu lary tests and the data from the questionnaire were

292 Bak, Shinyoung

analyzed to ascertain the effects of semantic relatedness on L2 vocabulary learning and

perception. First, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was employed

to analyze the vocabulary test scores. The within-subjects variable was Time (pre, post,

delayed) and the between-subjects variable was Group (unrelated, related). The dependent

variable was test scores of each vocabulary test. A significance level of .05 was applied.

Second, the data from the questionnaires were analyzed with a paired t-test to

investigate the perception change in Group R. The independent variable was Time (pre,

post) and the dependent variable was scores of each questionnaire item measured by a

four-point Likert scale. A significance level of .05 was applied.

IV. RESULTS

1. Vocabulary Test Results

Data in the form of the number of correct answers out of 32 questions was analyzed

using ANOVA with repeated measures. Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics of the test

scores. In the pretest, Group U achieved a mean of 1.83 and the average of the Group R

was 3.30. The average of the post-test was 25 .91 for Group U and 20.61 for Group R.

Lastly, Group U achieved a mean of 23 .38 in the delayed test, and that of Group R was

17.80. The complete source Table (Table 3) illustrates that there was a significant main

effect for Group (Group U vs. Group R), and Time (pre vs. post vs. delayed) .

TABLE 2

Descriptive Statistics for Vocabula ry Test Scores

Time Group N M SD

Pre U 53 1.83 2.19

R 54 3.30 3.24

Total 107 2.57 2.88

Post U 53 25 .91 8.77

R 54 20.61 9.40

Total 107 23.23 9.43

Delayed U 53 23.38 9.12

R 54 17.80 9.68

Total 107 20.56 9.78


TABLE 3

Source Table: ANOVA with Repeated Measures by Group and Time

Source SS df MS F Sig

Between Subjects

Intercept 768 10.18 76810.18 629.16 .00*

Group 789.40 789.40 6.47 .01 *

Error 12818.86 105 122.08

Within Subjects

Time 17377.94 17377.93 471.33 .00*

Time x Group 664.18 I 664.18 18.01 .00*

Error 3871.31 105 36.87

* p < .05

The significant main effect for Group means that Group U significantly outperformed

Group R as shown in Table 4. Because the significant main effect for Time was found in

Table 3, a post-hoc test for Time was performed to identify which mean was significantly

different from others. Table 5 demonstrates that there were significant mean differences

between 3 pairs: the pretest and posttest; the posttest and delayed test; and the pretest and

delayed test. To elaborate, the scores of the test significantly increased in the posttest

compared to the pretest and then significantly decreased in the delayed test. Despite this

decline, participants achieved significantly higher scores in the delayed test compared to

the posttest.

(1) Group

R

* p < .05

(1) Time

Pre

Pre

Post

* P < .05

TABLE 4

Post Hoc Test: Pairwise Comparison by Group

(J) Group MD (l-J) Std. Error

u -3.14 1.23

TABLE 5

Post Hoc Test: Pairwise Comparisons by Time

(J) Time MD (l-J) SId. Error

Post -20.70 .85

Delayed -18.02 .83

Delayed 2.67 .44

Sig

.01 *

Sig.

.00*

.00*

.00*

294 Bak, Shinyoung

At the same time, the significant interaction between Group and Time was found (Table

3). To detennine which of the means were significantly different from others, a post-hoc

test was perfOlmed. The results of the post-hoc test are displayed in Table 6 and Table 7.

TABLE 6

Post Hoc Test: Pairwise Comparisons for Interaction Ti me x Gronp

Time (I) Group (1) Group MD (l-J) SId. Error Sig.

Pre U R -1.47 .54 .OOS

Post U R 5.30 1.76 .003*

Delayed U R 5.5S I.S1 .003*

* p < .0055

TABLE 7

Post Hoc Test : Pa irwise Comparisons for Interaction Group x Time

Group (I) Time (1) Time MD (l-J) Std. Error Sig.

u Pre Post -24.0S 1.20 .000*

Pre Delayed -21.55 I.IS .000*

Post Delayed 2.53 .63 .000*

R Pre Post - 17.32 1.19 .000*

Pre Delayed -14.50 1.17 .000*

Post Delayed 2.S2 .62 .000*

* p < .0055

All significance values, except for between groups at the pretest time, are smaller than

the adjusted alpha level according the Bonferroni Adjustment I (Table 6; Table 7). No

difference between groups at pretest indicates that the two groups are at the same level

before the treatment. Scores of both groups increased significantly in the post test and then

significantly decreased in the delayed test, while Group U noticeably outperfonned Group

R in both tests. These results seem to indicate that SU is more effective than SR.

2. Find ings from Questionnaires and Interviews

Participants in Group R were asked how much they agreed with the effectiveness of SR

I The Bonferroni Adjustment is a "procedure to control type I error rates. In this procedure, the original a lpha level chosen for significance is divided by the number of planned comparisons. Each comparison must be significant at this level in order to be declared significant" (Hays, 1994, p. 452). According to the Bonferroni Adjustment, significance levels for this analys is should be adj usted to 0.0055 (=0.05/9) because there were nine pairwise comparisons in tota l.

The Effects ofSelllantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabu lary Reca ll and Retention 295

before and after the treatment. The results of the statistical analysis with a paired t-test are

shown in Table 8. The mean of the pre-questionnaire was 3.42 and that of the post

questionnaire was 3.22. Although about 85% of learners still agreed with the effectiveness

of SR in the post-questionnaire (Table 9), the result of the t-test shows that the change of

learners' perception was statistically significant (Table 8). These results can be interpreted

as signifYing that the SR treatment obviously changed students' perception of the method

from a more effective to less effective one. In other words, some learners may have

noticed the ineffective feature of studying related words together resulting in changes to

their opinion in the post-questionnaire.

Tillle

Pre

Post

* p < .05

Pre

Post

T ime

TABLE 8

Paired T-tes t for the Perceived Effectiveness of th e SR

N

5 1

5 1

M SD

3.42 0.09 2. 11

3.22 0.09

TABLE 9

Frequ ency for Perceived Effectiveness of th e SR

0.0

0.0

Disagree

2

7.7

15.1

Agree

3

40 .4

50.9

df

50

4

5 1.9

34.0

I = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree

Sig.

0.04*

Total

(%)

100

100

In addition to the findings described above, the resul ts of the second part of the pre

questionnaire about the learners ' attitudes to vocabulary learning are provided in Table 10

and Table II . The means of all three survey questions were more than 2.88 (Table 10).

These high mean scores seem to indicate that learners generally have positive attitudes

toward vocabulary learn ing. As illustrated in Table II , slightly more than 90% of learners

agreed that vocabulary knowledge could contribute to improving their general English

proficiency. To the other two questions, about three out of four students responded that

they are interested in vocabulary learning and eager to learn more words in school.

296 Bak, Sh inyoung

TABLE 10

Desc riptive Statistics of Learners' Attitudes to Vocabu lary Learning

Questions N M SD

Vocabulary leaning is useful to im prove 107 3.27 0.65

genera l English proficiency.

Learn ing vocabulary is interesting. 107 2.88 0.72

I'd li ke to learn more vocabu lary in school. 107 2.98 0.77


TABLE 11

Frequency for Lea rners' Attitudes to Vocabulary Learning

Disagree Agree Total Questions

2 3 4 (%)

Vocabu lalY knowledge contributes to general 1.9 5.6 56. 1 36.4 100

Engl ish proficiency.

Learning vocabulalY is interesting. 3.7 2 1.5 57.9 16.8 100

I' d like to learn more vocabulary in school. 4.7 15.9 56. 1 23.4 100


In addition to the surveys, semi-strucnrred interviews were conducted to investigate the

learners' perceptions toward semantic relatedness in vocabulary learning. Learners in

Group R tended to more frequently report that they confused words with each other: "I can

say these two words (pointing out the two words, thigh and calf) are names of body parts.

But I'm sti ll confused which one is which." Some words were pointed out as the most

troub lesome pairs by two homeroom teachers of Group R: "I think many of my students

had some difficulties to learn the words thigh and calf, and mustache and beard. Frankly,

even I was confused, too." These responses seem to parallel those of Tinkham's (1997)

study.

v. DISCUSSION

This study aimed to investigate the effects of semantic relatedness on vocabulary recall

and retention of young Korean learners of English. To reflect real L2 learning process

especially of Korean young learners, four classes of primary school students who are at the

beginning level participated in the study. For the same purpose, this study employed real

English words and natural classroom environment instead of the artificial words and


experimental setting.

The first and second research questions attempted to examine to what extent semantic

relatedness influences on L2 vocabulary recall and retention respectively. Participants in

both groups produced significant progress in their posttest and then appreciably

diminished their scores in the delayed test. Despite the loss, the scores of both groups in

the delayed test were sti ll significantly higher compared to those of the pretest. These

results symbolize that both vocabulary presentation methods have a positive effect on L2

vocabulary recall and retention. Among the two groups, Group R yielded significantly

higher scores than Group U in post- and delayed tests of vocabulary. The divergent post

treatment scores of the two groups may suggest that SU demonstrates a greater influence

than SR does on L2 vocabulary recall and retention.

Overall, SU yields better results on vocabulary recall and retention. These positive

influences can be explained by various reasons. One possible reason could be drawn from

interference theory. That is to say, simi larities between the words provided for Group R

might have promoted interference. Though a natural level of interference probably

occurred under the unrelated words treatment condition (Santrock, 2004; Slavin, 2003), a

stronger effect seemed to appear under the related words treatment condition. The level of

similarity and the time gap between learning have generally been accepted as contributing

to the strength of the interference (Bower, 2000; Nation, 2000, Tinkham, 1993), hence,

learners in Group U might have experienced less interference which in tum may have led

to less difficulty in learning. Moreover, there seems to be a possibility that the interference

was linked to the cross-association of individual items as revealed in the interview. One

learner said that she was unable to pair the target words and their Korean translation

meaning despite the fact that she could confidently recall two Korean translations of the

words. Even teachers of Group R agreed with the learner's explanation. This feedback

seems to correspond with what Waring (1997) reported. In his study learners noted that

associating the pseudo words with their corresponding meaning caused more difficulty

than remembering the artificial words (Waring, 1997). Furthermore, Kroll and Stewart's

(1994) concept of the asymmetrical storage model could provide another possible reason

(Kroll & Stewart, 1994 as cited in Randall, 2007). According to this model, at the initial

stage of learning, the new L2 foml is connected more fimlly to the L 1 form and only

weakly to the concept. Due to the weak connection, the L2 fonn tends to be processed

mostly through the L1 fonn which has a firm connection to concept. This mediated

process would be substituted with a direct process after learners build stronger associations

between the new form and its concept.

In the present study, receiving sets of related words together might have increased the

process of discriminating between subtle meaning differences separating the words . As a

result of this cognitive load requiring an adequate amOlmt of the working memory (Waring,

298 Bak, Shinyoung

1997), less of the working memory would be available for associating an unfamiliar L2

fOlm with a known concept. Thus, learners in Group R who had relatively fewer chances

for building links between fornl and meaning may have experienced an increased potential

for interference or cross-association which eventually resulted in less effective learning.

On the other hand, leamers in Group U might have been able to focus on building

connections between fOlm and meaning without concerning themselves with other

possible comlections such as meaning between related words. Additionally, Group U was

likely able to benefit from the distinctiveness among words when unrelated words were

presented. Hunt and Mitchell (1982) stressed that non-similarity among words could

promote discrimination, and thus improve the learning (as cited in Papathanasiou, 2009b).

Learners in Group U who received five words from different categories may have learned

the words better by using the words ' notable features.

Another reason for the considerable advantage of SU might be attributed to the

proportion of familiar words. In the present study, only one out of 10 words was known to

leamers at the initial stage; therefore, students were likely affected greatly by interference.

For this reason, semantic mapping is suggested as a useful activity for "clarifying and

enriching the meaning" when learners already know the words (Graves, 2006, p. 79).

Nation (2000) similarly pointed out that teaching similar words may have its value after

the meanings of the words are "well established" (p. 9). Furthermore, Folse (2004)

highlighted the fact that using semantic relatedness may be useful for reviewing rather

than introducing the words. To sum up, the process of connecting a form to a meaning

differentiates L2 vocabulary learning from Ll word recall. Therefore, new L2 forms may

need to be firmly connected to the concept before they are compared with others. To

encourage the connecting process, SU seems more expedient.

The last research question was designed to explore whether receiving SR affects

learners ' perceptions toward its effectiveness. To investigate this, the data from the

questionnaires were analyzed using a paired t-test. The results seem to demonstrate that the

treatment noticeably affected the perceived effectiveness of the treatment method. This

result was supported by the findings from the interviews. The interviews revealed that

several of the students may have recognized the interference or cross-association between

words, especially those in the same lexical-set.

Though a significant change in perceptions was found (Table 8), about 85% of

participants in Group R still seemed in favor of presentation of related words over that of

unrelated words in general (Table 9). This phenomenon could be explained by two

possible reasons. First, the treatment period of four weeks might not have been long

enough for participants to detect any disadvantages of SR which was strongly believed by

them to be more effective. Second, there is a possibility that organization of the textbook

may affect students' perceptions. Even after learners recognized the fact that learning

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL VocabulalY Reca ll and Retention 299

similar words is less effective for vocabulary leaming, they may accept SR as productive

because it has been, and continues to be, one of the more common techniques that they

have learned words through in their text books.

VI. CONCLUSION

The present study aims at understanding the role of semantic relatedness in L2

vocabulary recall and retention for young learns of English in Korea. The results showed

that SU generates significantly greater gains in L2 vocabulary recall and retention.

Additionally, leamers' perceptions toward SR changed from more effective to less

effecti ve by receiving vocabulary learning sessions through SR.

From these findings of the present study, several implications for L2 vocabulary

teaching are listed. One of the more important findings from thi s study is that extra

vocabulary learning sessions, of any kind, could contribute to vocabulary growth. This

fi nding is likely to support the need for extra vocabulary-focused leaming in elementary

schools. Many researchers have recommended explicit or direct vocabulary teaching at

initial stages of leaming to ensW'e leamers acquire the 2,000-3 ,000 most frequent words,

often referred to as core vocabulary (Nati on, 2008; Schmitt, 2000; Thornbury, 2002).

Because this core vocabulary could cover around 80% of the running words in most

written text and around 90% of basic conversation (Nation, 2008), it is anticipated that

learners will have more chance to learn vocabulary incidentally from comprehensible input

(Coady, 1997; Schmitt, 2000). Therefore, scholars have insisted that core vocabulary

should be learned as soon as possible at the initial stage of learning (Meara, 1995;

Thornbury, 2002). Nation (2008) stated that high-frequency words deserve to be taught

explicitly despite the limited class time available and could be leamed in three to five years

in school. In Korea, it is reasonable to conjectW'e that elementary schools, where public

English education starts, are responsible for teaching the core vocabulary to enable

learners to prepare for further learnjng. Jeong (2009) observed that the importance of

vocabulary leaming seems to be refl ected in the revised English curriculum (Min istry of

Education, Science and Teclmology [MEST], 2008). However, the nwnber of

recommended words in the current English curriculum (MEST, 20 11 ), about 500 words, is

still less than a quarter of the core vocabulary size. Hence, there remains the distinct

possibili ty that additional vocabulary-focused leaming will contribute to optimal English

education.

Second, material developers and teachers could emerge as respons ible for being aware

of the strengths and weaknesses of vocabulary presentation methods. None of the available

presentation methods should be excluded (Waring, 1997), but rather should be applied

300 Bak, Shinyoung

appropriately in order to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of each

respective method. For example, presentation of semantically related words could deepen

and widen the understanding of known words by connecting and contrasting them (Folse,

2004; Jullian, 2000; Papathanasiou, 2009b). On the other hand, presentation of

semantically unrelated words could significantly assist L2 vocabulary learning, especially

when the majority of the words are new to the learners (Baleghizadeh & Naeim, 2011;

Nation, 2001). When material developers and teachers have knowledge of practical

findings from empirical studies, their presentation methods could then be diversified

according to the level of target learners and type of the activity in the course books and the

classroom. What has been commonly suggested as an alternative for SR is thematic

clustering (Bolger & Zapata, 20 II ; Folse, 2004; Tinkam, 1997; Waring, 1997). When SR

is used, confusion could be reduced by making words non-interchangeable (Thornbury,

2002). For example, words can be introduced with commonly associated collocates, in

different contexts, or through different sensory modes (Folse, 2004, Nation, 2001).

Third, students need to be instructed in the differing effectiveness of using these two

approaches: SR and Su. Nation (2000) stated that learners often express a preference for

SR and this tendency was revealed in the questionnaire data of the current study; many

young Korean learners stated that they prefer to learn semantically related words together.

Though significant numbers of learners changed their thoughts, about 85% of learners still

tended to favor learning related words; therefore, learners need to be instructed not to

study related words together from the first. Moreover, learners may benefit from knowing

the possible advantages and disadvantages of using these as learning strategies (Schmitt,

2000). They could use SU when they study new words for the first time, and then move to

SR to review known words.

Some limitations of the present study should be addressed. First, this study focused on

only several restricted aspects of word knowledge: receptive aspects or recognition of the

written form. Second, the period of the treatment may not have been long enough to

examine consequential perception changes, as noted in the discussion. Additionally, there

is a possibility that other variables may have contributed to the recognition of this negative

effect. From these limitations, suggestions for further studies can be drawn. A longer

treatment is needed to ascertain the fmdings of present study. Moreover, other aspects of

vocabulary learning and other possible variables should be accounted for before the results

are generalized.

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabul3ly Reca ll and Retention 30 I

REFERENCES

Aitchison, 1. (2003). Words in the mind (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune &

Stratton.

Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbawn.

Baleghizadeh, S., & Naeim, M. Y. (2011). Enhancing vocabulary retention through

semantic mapping: A single-subject study. Language Society and Culture, 32, 11-

16.

Baleghizadeh,S ., & Shahry, M. N. N. (2011). The effect of three consecutive context

sentences on EFL vocabulary-learning. TESL Canada Journal, 28(2),74-89.

Bolger, P., & Zapata, G. (2011). Semantic categories and context in L2 vocabulary

leaming. Language Learning, 6J(2), 614-646.

Bower, G. H. (2000). A brief history of memory research. In E. Tulving & F. 1. M. Craik

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory (pp. 3-32). New York: Oxford University

Press.

Chin, C. S. (2002). Context, semantic mapping, and word lists : Effectiveness on EFL

learners' vocabulary growth. English Teaching, 57(4),245-266.

Coady, J . (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition: A synthesis of research. In J. Coady & T.

Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 225-237). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Collins Cobuild English dictionary for advanced learners (4th ed.). (2003). HarperCollins

Publishers. Retrieved January 11 , 2012, from http://dictionary.reverso.netlenglish

cobuild/semantic

Collins junior thesaurus. (1989). London, England: HarperCollins Publishers.

Collins, A. M. , & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation of semantic processing.

Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.

Erten, 1. H. , & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new

words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36(3),407-422.

Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, 1. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word

leaming. Applied Linguistics, 24(3),369-383.

Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulmy myths. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Gramer, M. F. (2003). The basic Oxford picture dictionmy (7th ed.). New York, Oxford

University Press.

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulOlY book. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Hashemi, M. R., & Gowdasiaei , F. (2005). An attribute-treatment interaction study:

Lexical-set versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary instruction. RELC, 36(3),

302 Bak, Shinyoung

341-36l.

Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A

reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.),

Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge, England:


Jeong, D. B. (2009). Early English education. In B. B. In & D. B. Kim (Eds.), Childhood

English education: Listening, speaking, reading, and writing (pp. 3-65). Seoul,

Korea: Hankukrnunhwasa.

Jeong, S. Y. (2007) . Facilitating vocabulary learning with pictures. English Teaching,

62(3), 27-53.

Jullian, P. (2000). Creating word-meaning awareness. ELT Journal, 54(1),37-46.

Khosravizadeh, P., & Mollaei, S. (2011). Incidental vocabulary learning: A semantic fie ld

approach. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2(3), 20-28.

Kim, H. W. (2009). The perception change toward feedback in L2 writing: An analysis of

graduate students. English Teaching, 64(3), 79-106.

Klemm, W. R. (2007). What good is learning if you don't remember it? The Journal of

Effective Teaching, 7(1), 61-73 .

Kwon, S. H. (2004). How to present new words: An empirical study & students '

perception. English Teaching, 59(3),247-269.

Lim, S. A. (2009) . The effect of two types of pre-listening support on EFL learners '

listening test performance: Question preview and vocabulary instruction. Korean

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 391-415.

Longman children 's picture dictionary. (2003) . Quarry Bay, Hong Kong: Pearson

Longman Asia EL T.

Meara, P. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18(4),393-

407.

Meara, P. (1995). The importance of early emphasis on L2 vocabulary. The Language

Teacher, j 9(2), 8-11 .

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2008, December). English curriculum

(Proclamation of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology #2008-160,

Separate Volume 14). Retrieved November 5, 2011 from

http: //www.kice.re.krlkolboard/view.do?article_id=88563&menujd= 10135

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011, August). English curriculum

(Proclamation of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology #2011-361 ,

Separate Volume 14). Retrieved November 5, 2011, from

http://www.mest.go.kr/web/48194lkolboard/view.do?bbsId=286&&boardSeq=248

12&mode=view

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL VocabulalY Recall and Retention 303

Mirja lili, F., Jabbari , A. A., & Rezai, M. J. (2012). The effect of semantic and thematic

clustering of words on Iranians vocabulary learning. American International

JournaL ofContemporaJY Research, 2(2),21 4-222.

Morin, R. , & Goebel, 1. (200 I). Basic vocabulary instruction: Teaching strategies or

teaching words? Foreign Language AnnaLs, 34(1),8-1 7.

Nation, J. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines .

TESOL Journal, 9(2),6- 10.

Nation, l. S. P. (200 1). Learning vocabulary in another Language. Cambridge, England:


Nati on, 1. S. P. (2006). Second language vocabulary. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of

Language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 448-454). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Nation, I. S. P . (2008). Teaching vocabuLary: Strategies and techniques. Boston, MA:

Heinle ELT.

Otten, L. J., Henson, R. N. , & Rugg, M. D. (2001). Depth of processing effects on neural

con'elates of memory encoding. Brain, 124(2), 399-412.

Papathanasiou, E. (2009a). An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary. ELT

JournaL, 63(4), 313-322.

Papathanasiou, E. (2009b). How do vocabulary presentation and word properties influence

the learning of new English (L2) words by Greek adult beginners. In T. Tsangalidis

(Ed.), Selected Papers from the 18th 1STAL (pp. 32 1-330). Thessaloniki, Greece:

Monochromia Publishing. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://my.enl.auth.gr/

18thSymposium/33 ]apathanasiou.pdf

Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case

study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18( 1), 1-28.

Ramachandran, S. D., & Rahim, H. A. (2004). Meaning recall and retention : The impact

of the translation method on elementary level learners' vocabulary learning. RELC,

35(2), 161-178.

Randall , M. (2007). MemOlY, psychoLogy and second language Learning. Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Read, R. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. AnnuaL Review of AppLied Linguistics,

24, 146-161.

Rodriguez, M., & Sadoski, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and

contextlkeyword methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms.

Language Learning, 50(2), 385-4 12.

Roediger, H. L. , & McDennott, K. B. (2000). Distortion of memory. In E. Tulving & F. I.

M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory (pp. 149-1 62). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Santrock, 1. (2004) . EducationaL PsychoLogy (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hili Higher

304 Bak, Shinyoung

Education.

Schmitt, N . (1997). Vocabulary learning strategy. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),

Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke,

England: Palgrave Macmiilan.

Seal, B. D. (1991). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching

English as a foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 296-311). Boston, MA: Heinle &

Heinle.

Shapiro, A. M., & Waters, D. (2005). An investigation of the cognitive processes

underlying the keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning. Language

Teaching Research, 9(2), 129-146.

Shapiro, N. (2008). The Oxford picture dictionary (2nd ed.) . New York: Oxford

University Press.

Slavin, R. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and practice (7th ed.) . Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon.

The heinie picture dictionary. (2005). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. New York: Longman.

Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language

vocabulary. System, 21(3), 371-380.

Tinkham, T. (1997). The effect of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of

second language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13(2), 138-163.

Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets : A replication.

System, 25(2), 261-274.

Webb, S. (2007). The effect of repetition in vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics,

28(1), 46-65.

Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon: A depth of individual word

knowledge model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(1), 41-69.

Wolter, B. (2006). Lexical network structures and L2 vocabulary acquisition: The role of

Ll lexical/conceptual knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 741-747.

1)

2)

The Effects of Semantic Relatedness on EFL Vocabulary Recall and Retention

APPENDIX Organizaion ofYocabulary Items

Group R

Week Target vocabulary items

instep calf shin sole thigh mo le mustache freckle beard sideburn

2 overweight skinny slender lean chubby cooperative stubborn timid re liable moody

3 dust rinse polish scrub vacuum strain dice grate stir-fry whisk

4 sneak wander strut trudge toddle paw claw fin hoof feather

Group U

Week Target vocabulary items

instep thigh cooperati ve moody overweight paw mo le sneak dust strain

2 feather claw toddle wander mustache rinse stubborn skinny calf dice

3 polish vacuum sideburn freckle slender fin tim id strut shin grate

4 lean chubby wh isk stir-fry sole hoof re liable scrub beard trudge

Applicable levels: primary education

Key words: vocaburly learning, sematicall y related words, interference theory, cross-association

Shinyoung Bak

Department of English Language Teaching

Intelllational Graduate School of English

17 Yangjae-daero SI-gil , Gangdong-gu,

Seoul 134-847, Korea

Email: [email protected]

Received in June, 20 12

Reviewed in July, 20 12

Revised version received in August, 20 12

305

the effects of semantic relatedness on efl vocabulary...

Documents